Subject:
Why not an updated FFG-7 design in place of LCS?thumper2/13/2008 12:19:02 AM

I have been reading this forum for a long time without posting. The current discussion about VLS on carriers has been quite interesting. The thing that really caught my eye is the part about the USN being short on smaller ships and how the LCS is a failure. My question is why not use an updated version of the FFG-7 design. It seems to me it would fit the bill. Why not use the hull and machinery as is and update the armament and electronics.

I have been reading this forum for a long time without posting. The current discussion about VLS on carriers has been quite interesting. The thing that really caught my eye is the part about the USN being short on smaller ships and how the LCS is a failure. My question is why not use an updated version of the FFG-7 design. It seems to me it would fit the bill. Why not use the hull and machinery as is and update the armament and electronics.

The RANs Adelaide class are basically upgraded OHP's:

From Wiki (out of convenience)

Upgrades

There have been two major upgrades distinguishing the Adelaide class from the American Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

Lengthening

The first three units, as initially constructed, had a length identical at both the main deck and the keel, similar to that of the early Oliver Hazard Perry class ships. From Darwin onwards, the ship's overall length was increased by angling the transom (the section between the fantail and the keel) - this enlarged the flight deck, allowing the larger Seahawk helicopter to be accommodated. This was retrofitted into Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney at their periodic refits.

As part of a major programme of improvements, a AU$1 billion upgrade project for the Adelaide class is in progress, which will see enhancements to both weapons and equipment. The costs of the project will be partly offset by the decommissioning of the two oldest units, with Canberra paying off in 2005, Adelaide is due to be paid off early in 2008. The first upgraded vessel, Sydney, returned to the fleet in 2005. Some of the new features include the ability to fire the SM-2 missile, the addition of an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile[2] and enhanced air search radar and long range sonar. When these upgrades are complete, the Adelaide class frigates will be the only FFG-7 class ships in the world capable of employing ESSM and SM-2. Each unit to be upgraded will do so at Garden Island in Sydney, with the modifications taking between 18 months and two years. The ships will be replaced starting in 2013 by three new air defence destroyers equipped with the Aegis combat system.

They look like they will be fairly capable ships. In fact I think it may be overkill for what was being discussed for the low end in the Carrier VLS thread. I wonder if you could mount a 5 inch gun in the bow, mount an eight cell VLS in place of the three inch gun on the deck house and mount a Evolved sea sparrow or RAM launcher in place of where the CIWS used to be. Also maybe put a .50 caliber or two on each side of the ship as well. Keep the helo facilities and upgrade the sonar.

Something tells me if you cannot mount the VLS up there then you cannot mount a 5 inch gun up there either. For this mission I really think the gun may be more important than missiles so I guess I would look into mounting a 5 inch gun in the bow where the Mk13 used to be, upgrading the Otto Malera on the deck house to something better and going with a RAM launcher or ESSP in place of Phalanx. I would also look into trying to fit a harpoon box launcher between the gun mount and the bridge.

I remember that we built Liberty ships to a pre WW I British freighter design that we pocked for its ease of fabrication and its cargo efficiency. We chose cheap and effective, because we needed numbers in a big hurry.

The Knox design is EFFECTIVE and it is cheap.

Or dust off the Knox, give it diesels, and repackage it to 21st century standards?

I like the Knox's, it's a damn shame we got t-boned by the Newports. The Govt would have gone for them as interim replacements for the Perth/Brisbane/Hobart if we hadn't got screwed on the other deal.

As it is, there is a huge reluctance to buy second hand US kit anymore...

Its a classic frigate design layout. We still have the plans around somewhere gathering dust. Diesels aren't as noisy as they used to be though they still send one heck of a sound short into the water, but that can't be helped if you want speed, economical cruising and range in a cheap 5000 ton hull. You should be using a thermo-electric drift engine if you use hull sonar anyway. Short Mk 41 VLS behind the forecastle gun is acceptable. pack it with ESSMs and mount a couple of RAM launchers and your helo UAV/UUV facilities on the back end, put in a SPY1A and your done. $750M frigate.

Save 70% of the detail design work. Remaining 30% is diesel electric propulsion, all electric control systems, cable running the ship electronics [Boy did the Russians screw up the Indian carrier bid when they didn't estimate that one properly!], and automation to reduce crew size to a manageable 100 men; but the point is that you do the detail design changes in the computer for new build hulls . That is why an ostensible $400M frigate through the first four units costs so much. After the bugs get worked out in cutting hull metal, then we can start selling them to the allies for $400M a pop and build them for ourselves in the 50 or so I think we need for the surface fleet.

ignore my prev brain phart. I was discussing at cross purposes. I like the Knox, but my comment was geared towards the failure to consider the Kidds due to the stuff ups with the Newports. Unfort the Newports left Oz govt with a reluctance to buy any more second hand vessels from USN so that meant that getting the Kidds or the Block 1 Ticos was never going to get up.

ignore my prev brain phart. I was discussing at cross purposes. I like the Knox, but my comment was geared towards the failure to consider the Kidds due to the stuff ups with the Newports. Unfort the Newports left Oz govt with a reluctance to buy any more second hand vessels from USN so that meant that getting the Kidds or the Block 1 Ticos was never going to get up.

The trouble with buying second hand is that then end user has to inspect thoroughly and understand exactly what is on the blocks. The Canadians should have found the Upholders to be excellent, but you know that you second source tech or try to modify that things you planned never work out as planned. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't understand .that a US identical product in Israeli service will eventually be modified by a radically different tech tree than one in Australian service. Each end user tweaks his model to his own version of tech.

So when the Canadians truied to incorporate some "American" technology into a "British" boat using the Canadian "tech tree", they ran into all kinds of problems.

Its one of the reasons that if the US does decide to build a cheap frigate we should grab one out of own tech tree and tweak it as OUR general purpose frigate instead of trying to fit someone elses design into our mission footprint.

Its why I'm surprised that Australaia didn't look at the Dutch or British when she examined AWD candidates.as well as US and Spain. Just stay the heck away from ASTER! That piece of no-growth technology rubbish was a dead ender from day 1.

You know the RN will be tearing their hair out when they see what replaces Standard 2, 3, and 6. And we have our friends the Australians to largely thank for it.